tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post4376739526849990295..comments2024-03-28T15:22:22.742-07:00Comments on Through These Woods: Bike to Work...Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-70310708022694332192011-05-25T06:20:17.847-07:002011-05-25T06:20:17.847-07:00That's true.That's true.John Farrierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04854543617806427302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-24467716515088646392011-05-25T04:55:33.198-07:002011-05-25T04:55:33.198-07:00That only says post roads. :)That only says post roads. :)Alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16274395216929104919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-7058893279344384482011-05-24T18:51:05.042-07:002011-05-24T18:51:05.042-07:00Article 1, Section 8, clause 7.Article 1, Section 8, clause 7.John Farrierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04854543617806427302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-89693559863649006362011-05-24T12:39:08.720-07:002011-05-24T12:39:08.720-07:00Where does it say anything about building roads in...Where does it say anything about building roads in the Constitution?<br><br>The government building roads is unconstitutional. <br><br>:)Alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16274395216929104919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-18292078145014578342011-05-24T11:59:16.138-07:002011-05-24T11:59:16.138-07:00It is not socialism to expect that the state, that...It is not socialism to expect that the state, that is, we the people, pay for that which is meant to be the responsibility of the gov't. That's called doing their job as was originally intended.Marshall Arthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-42878734535343625062011-05-23T13:22:26.575-07:002011-05-23T13:22:26.575-07:00It isn't just roads, BTW, but all the infrastr...It isn't just roads, BTW, but all the infrastructure that is required for suburban developments that is rarely (if ever) actually paid for in its entirety by the folks who buy houses in those developments.<br><br>So, in addition to the cost of driving from some place far away from their workplace, there's the additional cost of development of those subdivisions.<br><br>For example, in our little community, a developer put in 300 new homes in a subdivision, which required streets, sewer, water, sidewalks, street-lights, and capacity in the school system, increased capacity on the town waste-water treatment plant, increased capacity on the town water pumping station, increased capacity on our reverse-osmosis filter plant, etc. Their property taxes will not cover all of that new infrastructure, so we all pay for the fact that these folks chose to buy a new house rather than one of the many existing ones on the market. Even people living "greener" in high density apartments and condos in town are paying for all that additional infrastructure through city property taxes.<br><br>I don't have a problem with their making the choice to live in McMansion land, but I'm not thrilled with having to pay for it when increased density downtown wouldn't have required such a high cost.<br><br>Anyway, just pointing out that roads are only one cost here.<br><br>Wow, we're all such libertarians in this conversation! <br><br>(Well, except for MA, who is, interestingly enough apparently a socialist when it comes to roads.) :)Alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16274395216929104919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-8218398866634760832011-05-23T08:05:08.669-07:002011-05-23T08:05:08.669-07:00But the point, John, is that roads are a case wher...But the point, John, is that roads are a case where gov't involvement is appropriate because of the shared benefit that exists whether one chooses to recognize that benefit or not. Communities, villages and cities are all planned out, not privately, but communally. The roads are a part of what a community needs to flourish and by flourishing, everyone benefits. Where the roads are placed are also a gov't function. <br><br>I would also point out that as we can see in the attending picture above, bikers are using the roads in question. Are bikers going to riding on peopel's lawns or on those places that are unpaved? Are walkers going to be walking only in the dirt on the sides of the roads? Sidewalks only go so far and need to be maintained as well. Not everyone walks on sidewalks, so will we charge to use them as well?Marshall Arthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-52082781952934575952011-05-23T06:53:06.717-07:002011-05-23T06:53:06.717-07:00Marshall wrote:Then what's the point? Either w...Marshall wrote:<br><br><i>Then what's the point? Either way, Dan pays. Either through taxes or the higher costs to products he buys due to the costs of roads paid for by the manufacturers of his purchases. Roads are as much a shared benefit as a strong military.</i><br><br>But, as Dan wrote in response, the free market more efficiently allocates prices than government mandates.<br><br>Perhaps Dan will pay more as a result of user fees. Perhaps less. But it will be a more accurate reflection of the market because Dan will be able to choose to pay those fees, or not. If Dan is simply taxed -- that is, the money is taken from him with or without his consent -- then he is deprived of any choice at all.<br><br>As for the military, here I deviate from more extreme libertarians and say that it is a core function of government. I've heard various schemes for privatizing the military, and they don't seem remotely feasible. But we already have toll roads. Privatizing roads, or charging user fees for government-owned roads, has already demonstrated some success.John Farrierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04854543617806427302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-82564031498918105112011-05-22T22:50:35.574-07:002011-05-22T22:50:35.574-07:00"A free market can't operate well if such...<i>"A free market can't operate well if such detrimental expenses are hidden/subsidized/pushed off on future generations."</i><br><br>And how is this happening? Because future generations might have to use tax money to repair public roads? Is that your argument?<br><br>The term "motorist welfare" is lame to the extreme. I've already explained how they pay their share and that they do so to a greater percentage than most who don't use roads but still benefit by their existence. This is just a goofy environmentalist wackjob complaint. Since such infrastructure is the responsibility of gov't, it would be far better to eliminate spending on that which is not. There is plenty of that for sure.Marshall Arthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-57104846922890420452011-05-22T11:44:04.095-07:002011-05-22T11:44:04.095-07:00The points are...1. such an approach would help en...The points are...<br><br>1. such an approach would help end motorist welfare.<br>2. it would help people see ACTUAL costs (something approaching actual costs) for driving a personal auto, not artificially low prices<br>3. which in turn would serve as incentives to individuals and society to find healthier, more sustainable solutions that fit within their/our budget, ie, to live within our individual and collective means.<br><br>Among others.<br><br>A free market can't operate well if such detrimental expenses are hidden/subsidized/pushed off on future generations.Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-42171905439900024592011-05-22T11:37:12.666-07:002011-05-22T11:37:12.666-07:00Then what's the point? Either way, Dan pays. ...Then what's the point? Either way, Dan pays. Either through taxes or the higher costs to products he buys due to the costs of roads paid for by the manufacturers of his purchases. Roads are as much a shared benefit as a strong military.Marshall Arthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-11031226587013598622011-05-21T16:22:38.773-07:002011-05-21T16:22:38.773-07:00Marshall wrote:But even those who don't drive ...Marshall wrote:<br><br><i>But even those who don't drive benefit by virtue of not only emergency vehicles, but the movement of goods and services. How do you think the tires on your bicycle got to the bike shop? By bicycle? I don't think so. How about the shoes you wear when walking instead of driving? Did they get carried to the shoe store a few pair at a time?</i><br><br>Dan would pay for his indirect road usage. After all, the shipping company will pass its road use costs onto the bicycle shop, which will in turn pass the cost onto Dan. So Dan is hardly being a free rider.John Farrierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04854543617806427302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-87989884657913097932011-05-21T14:38:29.553-07:002011-05-21T14:38:29.553-07:00I think you're still missing the point. How d...I think you're still missing the point. How do you calculate the benefits of roads to those who do not use them? I suggest that they are greater than can be easily tallied. <br><br>You also seem to fail to realize that those most able to use them are also likely among those paying the lion's share of revenues to all levels of gov't. The poor are almost exempt from taxation and the wealthy and corporations account for most taxes paid. In some communities, such as the one in which I was raised, a large industrial and commercial presence accounts for most of the taxes so that property taxes are very low in comparison to neighboring communities. <br><br>In addition, charging a fee to all users would necessarily result in higher costs passed on to the very consumers you think will benefit. <br><br>Roads are infrastructure, a primary responsibility of gov't. Far better than your idea would be to find more efficient and cost-effective ways to maintain roads. A local county (or township or community---I can't remember which) has moved to a new type of substance for use in salting the roads during winter. The cost of the substance is cheaper and is supposedly more effective in the purpose of melting snow and improving traction. AND, it is supposed to be better in terms of less corrosion of the streets and vehicles. This entity has saved a large sum of money by the switch. <br><br>One can say that on the most basic level, that users are already paying for the roads by virtue of the extra gas they use and the massive amount of tax per dollar spent on each gallon, so that even if all a person is doing is burning gasoline, driving for pleasure with no destination but the return portion of the trip home, they are paying for the privilege of doing so. Most people, however, are going somewhere and usually spending money in the process, so sales taxes are added to the equation. <br><br>But even those who don't drive benefit by virtue of not only emergency vehicles, but the movement of goods and services. How do you think the tires on your bicycle got to the bike shop? By bicycle? I don't think so. How about the shoes you wear when walking instead of driving? Did they get carried to the shoe store a few pair at a time? <br><br>Furthermore, and I'm still checking into this as time allows, being in the trucking industry, I have heard debate on the whether or not rail is truly more cost effective and environmentally safer. But even so, once the goods get to the end of the line, they need to be transported to their final destination. <br><br>As for barges, there are only so many waterways that can accomodate that mode of moving freight. And what of the impact on the waterways themselves in terms of traffic and pollution?Marshall Arthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-65899832499020693292011-05-21T04:54:45.527-07:002011-05-21T04:54:45.527-07:00I don't know what's up with blogger. It...<b>I don't know what's up with blogger. It's been acting especially screwy lately. Anyway, your post came through to my email both times. Here is John's Missing Post:</b><br><br>Dan wrote:<br><br><i>When we moved to the Personal Auto for Everyone solution, one side effect was that our streets/sidewalks were emptied of pedestrians. One side effect of that was that it then became easier/more likely to get assaulted on abandoned urban streets. Better than ANY gun "protection" is the presence of a crowd. Safety in numbers, and all that.<br><br>With the removal of pedestrians from our streets, we paved the way for increased thug activity on them instead, INCREASING, once again, the "need" for cars ("I can't walk to school, you'll have to drive me..."). That has been a HUGE cost to society and a detriment to our freedom.</i><br><br>This is an interesting line of thought, but I'm skeptical and would like to see some evidence to support the claim.<br><br><i>Added to that example is the fattening of America. When everyone HAD to get around by their own power, they did so, by and large. That enforced some daily exercise. It is the lack of daily exercise that is harming our health and hampering our happiness/liberty, and again, at a cost to society.</i><br><br>1. Isn't it wonderful that we live in a nation where poor people are fat? Never before in human history has such a state of affairs prevailed.<br><br>2. Are we unhealthier? Fatter, for sure. But if we're unhealthier, lifespan should have decreased, rather than increased.<br><br>3. Is there a cost to "society"? If you find the libertarian mind puzzling, I suggest this blog post which attempts to address how libertarians (in general) conceptualize "society".<br><br>4. I'm curious about how you define the term "liberty" in this context.<br><br><i>Glad to hear that you are supportive of the mileage tax. It seems like a relatively reasonable idea. I'm DEFINITELY in favor of motorists paying their full way, so that the costs of driving are factored in more accurately. One problem that libertarians might have, it seems to me, is with the gov't "knowing"/tracking how many miles you drive, which is why I was wondering what you thought.</i><br><br>This could be a huge problem, although the government seems to be well on its weigh to tracking our movements.<br><br><i>Do you know what the "mood" of libertarians is, in general, on this issue? Or is it on their radar, yet?</i><br><br>It's not on my radar, at least. Most of the people I read focus more on privatizing roads rather than charging user fees. That, at least, could alleviate some government surveillance problems.<br><br><i>What did they say at your last SuperSecret Libertarian Overthrow/Ayn Rand Appreciation Society meeting?</i><br><br>The meeting didn't happen. We couldn't all agree on when and where to have it, and no one had the authority to simply make a decision.Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-20595461695330925602011-05-20T17:30:58.520-07:002011-05-20T17:30:58.520-07:00This is confusing. I've published a comment tw...This is confusing. I've published a comment twice, and both times it's vanished. Blogger is still screwy.<br><br>Well, anyway Dan, I responded to your comment that begins with "Your gun idea did remind me of another cost, by the way..." at some length. I'm afraid I won't have time to type it out again.John Farrierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04854543617806427302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-22370674879830113562011-05-20T11:57:14.434-07:002011-05-20T11:57:14.434-07:00Dan wrote:The point is, the vast network of roads ...Dan wrote:<br><br><i>The point is, the vast network of roads built the way they are exists to accommodate personal motorists, and they should pay their own way and not be subsidized by general tax dollars and certainly not subsidized by the poor and others who don't even drive!<br><br>That would be an example of a REGRESSIVE tax.</i><br><br>A regressive tax? This is an interesting perspective, and I'd say that you can make a good case for it: poor people can't afford cars, but are forced to pay for roads used by people richer than themselves.John Farrierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04854543617806427302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-31926024674916004092011-05-20T11:54:16.856-07:002011-05-20T11:54:16.856-07:00Marshall wrote:Because personal use does not equat...Marshall wrote:<br><br><i>Because personal use does not equate to persnal benefit. Think emergency vehicles for starters.</i><br><br>This problem can be solved with user fees.<br><br><i>Also, for those who bike to work, do you think your company can do without roads to move product to and fro? If one's company does not necessarily move product, what of those companies with whom THAT company does business?</i><br><br>Dan's company can pay for its road usage on a subscription or a per-use (e.g. per axle, per mile, per ton, etc.) basis.<br><br><i>Could any of them be productive and profitable enough to employ the same amount of people without the use of roads to extend their business's reach beyond their immediate area?</i><br><br>You're assuming that roads would not be built without the government forcing people to pay for them. That is: you're assuming that transportation is inherently unprofitable.John Farrierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04854543617806427302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-52508543505634708932011-05-20T11:43:27.596-07:002011-05-20T11:43:27.596-07:00Marshall...as far as biking to work goes, should o...Marshall...<br><br><i>as far as biking to work goes, should one move every time one changes jobs so that they are within walking or biking distance?</i><br><br>It depends on how much personal and societal energy independence and environmental sustainability is to them.<br><br>IF a person decides they just HAVE to live on a remote island in the ocean, then they will rightly claim, "I HAVE to have a helicopter to get to work!" The question is: Why live on a remote island? Can the world survive everyone living in that manner?<br><br>IF energy independence and sustainability are important values to you, IF you believe that the personal auto as norm is not sustainable and will ultimately cause much more harm than the temporary good justifies, THEN you make the decision to live a life in such a way as to be able to work and live sustainably.<br><br>That generally means that you live in a place where you have work options in a relatively small circle (it's not hard to do at all if you're in a city, seems to me) OR that you find ways to work out of home/near home as the norm. It's not really that hard IF it's a priority to you.<br><br>If it's not a priority to you, then no, it's not worth it <i>to you</i>.<br><br>I think, as always, the Golden Rule is a good measure: Would we be pleased if everyone lived as we are living? Would we SURVIVE if everyone lived as we are living?Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-35603103800872453912011-05-20T11:37:23.392-07:002011-05-20T11:37:23.392-07:00Marshall...Because personal use does not equate to...Marshall...<br><br><i>Because personal use does not equate to persnal benefit. Think emergency vehicles for starters.</i><br><br>...which could get by much more easily and presumably come closer to saving more citizens' lives IF the roads weren't congested with all those personal motorist vehicles.<br><br>Still, it's a point: There are other uses for roads besides personal use.<br><br><i>for those who bike to work, do you think your company can do without roads to move product to and fro?</i><br><br>Actually, they could do so more efficiently and cheaply by rail and barge, seems to me.<br><br><i>We all benefit from roads being paid for by local, state and federal taxes, whether we use any of them or not. </i><br><br>This is true to a degree. AND it's true that we all have deficits as a result of roads and personal autos. The great bulk of the reason for the great expense and expanse of roads is due to the Every Car in Every Garage approach to transportation.<br><br>For instance, IF we were all getting by on bikes, we'd still benefit from "roads" but those roads would cost a tiny fraction of the expense of roads built to accommodate 100 million drivers (or whatever the number is). I forget the exact price difference, but it's something like $50,000/mile of bike lane VS $5 million/mile of highway. <br><br>The point is, the vast network of roads <i>built the way they are</i> exists to accommodate personal motorists, and they should pay their own way and not be subsidized by general tax dollars and certainly not subsidized by the poor and others who don't even drive!<br><br>That would be an example of a REGRESSIVE tax.Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-57530362910127861142011-05-20T11:30:11.131-07:002011-05-20T11:30:11.131-07:00One more thing, as far as biking to work goes, sho...One more thing, as far as biking to work goes, should one move every time one changes jobs so that they are within walking or biking distance? If one is laid off because of a bad economy, and that can happen repeatedly, how can that be justified financially?Marshall Arthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-15233402582960568572011-05-20T11:27:52.786-07:002011-05-20T11:27:52.786-07:00"Why should someone who doesn't use the r...<i>"Why should someone who doesn't use the roads pay for them?"</i><br><br>Because personal use does not equate to persnal benefit. Think emergency vehicles for starters. Also, for those who bike to work, do you think your company can do without roads to move product to and fro? If one's company does not necessarily move product, what of those companies with whom THAT company does business? Could any of them be productive and profitable enough to employ the same amount of people without the use of roads to extend their business's reach beyond their immediate area? We all benefit from roads being paid for by local, state and federal taxes, whether we use any of them or not.Marshall Arthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-59105372836850926822011-05-20T10:54:14.462-07:002011-05-20T10:54:14.462-07:00A'ight.A'ight.Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-24474379141169270592011-05-20T10:41:53.202-07:002011-05-20T10:41:53.202-07:00Dan wrote:I suspect you're being deliberately ...Dan wrote:<br><br><i>I suspect you're being deliberately flippant here and not suggesting that basing an entire world's economy largely on a vanishing resource is not something that should be ignored until it's gone, right?</i><br><br>Yes, I was being a bit flippant. And although I respect that you've taken an effort to elaborate on this point of view, we've gone round and round about this a few times before. I think that we're pretty much at an impasse on this issue. I'd rather shake hands with you and call it a day on this particular subject, if that's all right.John Farrierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04854543617806427302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-51427576053050633472011-05-20T09:36:09.911-07:002011-05-20T09:36:09.911-07:00John...I've read the predictions that the worl...John...<br><br><i>I've read the predictions that the world will run out of oil in 1980. We'll just have to burn that bridge (for fuel) when we get to it.</i><br><br>I suspect you're being deliberately flippant here and not suggesting that basing an entire world's economy largely on a vanishing resource is not something that should be ignored until it's gone, right?<br><br>To be fair, the predictions that we'd "run out" of oil in the 80s came largely true. The actual predictions (at least the ones I'm familiar with) were along the lines of Hubbert's predictions...<br><br><i>In the 1950s the well known U.S. geologist M. King Hubbert was working for Shell Oil. He noted that oil discoveries graphed over time tended to follow a bell shape curve. He supposed that the rate of oil production would follow a similar curve, now known as the Hubbert Curve. In 1956 Hubbert predicted that production from the US lower 48 states would peak between 1965 and 1970. <br><br>...most people inside and outside the industry quickly dismissed the predictions. As it happens, the US lower 48 oil production <b>did</b> peak in 1970/1. In that year, by definition, US oil producers had never produced as much oil, and Hubbert's predictions were a fading memory. The peak was only acknowledged with the benefit of several years of hindsight. </i> <br><br><a href="http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php" rel="nofollow">energybulletin.net </a><br><br>Which is to say, the predictions weren't of "running out" but of "easily accessed oil production peaking," meaning that, from there on out, oil would/will be less easily accessed/more expensive and INCREASINGLY more expensive.<br><br>Finite resources HAVE to run out, by definition, if we keep consuming them. Basing a global economy on the assumption that cheap energy/petrol will always be available is a recipe for disaster, as would be basing the economy on cheap energy petrol OR some unknown entity that our genius will (perhaps, or maybe not) deliver.<br><br>Is that a fair statement with which you can agree?Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-90490794405638824772011-05-20T07:51:49.320-07:002011-05-20T07:51:49.320-07:00"What did they say at your last SuperSecret L..."What did they say at your last SuperSecret Libertarian Overthrow/Ayn Rand Appreciation Society meeting?"<br><br>*snicker*Alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16274395216929104919noreply@blogger.com